Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
yesterday Hillary said:
"You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall," - Senator Hillary Clinton, yesterday.
Many of my friends are strong feminists (as am I). In fact, one of my friends is a highly regarded social psychologist who's research in the inherent sexism in our language proved that young children are very affected by apparent "neutral" uses of language.
Anway, these friends of mine happen to dislike Clinton. Not hate. Dislike. And they each have their reasons. I am not arguing that they are correct or that Hillary should be disliked by intelligent women. I'm just saying that many progressive feminist women simply can't support Hillary (they would all vote for her over McCain). And the above quote is the type of thing that bugs them (NOT why they want Obama, but just bugs them).
My point: many of these highly intelligent feminist women who support Obama are AS UNABLE as Joan to really have a discussion. They set up their conversations just as Joan does (but they are mad about other content). There is no real discussion, but, of course, they are saying that we desperately need to be able to talk about this stuff.
I don't blame Joan for the low quality of dialog that happen here, but she is accountable to some degree. Joan does nothing to open the conversation, to let the conversation have the reasonable space it absolutely needs to have. She sets up points that will only produce those who will stand in one box and oppose the other box. That feels good and righteous and can make one feel proud (because, come on, there can be no doubt that Joan's abstract cause is worthy), but it is an example of the real, hidden, problem.
As a writing exercise, try your best to write a dialog between Joan and a feminist who disagrees with her. Using the frames and assumptions that Joan insists upon, see what the conversation is forced to become.
Nothing I am saying suggests that the media is not massively biased for specific kinds of coverage. I accept that there are ways Clinton has been incredibly supported by the media and incredibly undercut. It is not fair. And when you actually examine how both those polarities affect Obama, equally upsetting.
I can't stand that Joan is simply unable to let this be complicated. That doesn't mean agreeing with idiots. It means recognizing that we really can't say for sure why people are turned off by Obama and Clinton. We can say that they are treated unfairly. We can understand that decent people will have strong reactions against each. We can ASK people to share openly their enthusiasms and distrust. This can all be in a context of highly intelligent ignorance. Joan even admitted that she KNOWS she could argue everybody to her position. What kind of conversation do you expect to get?
The thing that was eye opening to me was Joan's comment that she has JUST recently forgiven those who voted for Nader. I'm sure Joan is well aware that there were AWFUL people voted for him. What an odd way to focus on the issues that motivate voters. And what an awful way to focus on the supporters of a given candidate. I have no problem with certain reasons for that vote. I have no problem with certain reasons for a McCain vote. Although, I am passionately hoping enough don't buy into those reasons!
And, given all this, I find it very odd that Joan really expects a healing conversation to take place that will fix the democratic party. I'd love to see Joan write an example of what she expects (without changing her fundamental assumptions and tone) It's like trying to eat soup with a spatula.
It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Joan is linking so many assumption under a few very simple statements. And people react to that. emotionally. They do the SAME thing as her. Read the posts. They tell Joan things that are undoubtedly true, but just like Joan, everything is embedded in a mesh of assumptions that should not be taken for granted. Joan then reacts to this. I think the quality of conversation is inevitable.
I always want to stress that I don't have a problem with somebody who wants to point to sexism functioning in this campaign. Or racism. Or any and all of the awful factors that, combined, are responsible for the shape of this primary. But the conflation of 15 things into one or two and then the implicit (or, with Joan and others, explicit) blaming...jeeez....
The hardest thing for me is that I really do believe that Joan thinks there needs to be this "healing" in the party. It's like somebody knowing they need more vitamin C while chugging down a box of nerds...
There is no reason to believe that Joan has any involvement with any letters here other than her own. To suggest otherwise undermines any other argument you try to make. The last thing I want is somebody arguing for Obama over McCain and also insisting that McCain wasn't actually tortured in Vietnam. And insisting that it's obvious...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
